Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
:?
Oh I'm sorry, you have a problem with the fact that I want people who don't support free speech to leave?
Tough.
I have a hard time with the "If you don't agree with me why don't you just move the Iran, comrade" garbage.
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm asking people to respect the fucking bill of god damn rights or GTFO.
-edit-
and if I ruffle feathers doing it, good. feathers have already been ruffled by some people proclaiming that this is that one magical instance where we should abandon free speech.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
Yes, that is a completely legal (and reasonable) view to express. From a billboard or a blimp if you like.
Yes...Yes...Now all we need is the money to do so, and a blimp driver.
I find particularly sad and worrisome the people who are quick to argue that flag burning is acceptable, but not qu'ran burning.
Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
If, however you do support, in general, this sort of angry protest speech but just not because it's the qu'ran, I would like to know why.
Why is that symbol important enough to be given special protection (btw these are the same questions you'll get asked if you argue for a constitutional ban on flag burning, this is a fair question) but not other people's sacred symbols?
I think Feral or some other people already answered this. With a flag it is easy to tell what it is being burned and it is pretty much just a symbol. With a book you are actually burning knowledge as well as burning a symbol. It is in some cases showing ignorance of the subject at hand because the people haven't actually read the book.
I understand the stance but I don't agree with it. It is still freedom of speech and it should still be protected even if burning books is a really bad idea.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I cannot actually believe that anyone here supports burning books. Changes my perspective quite a bit, I guess.
I haven't checked post page 4(so, apologies if your post refers to something from the last page or so), but at least in the start it was pretty obvious that the commentary was sarcastic and that nobody supported burning books. What was supported was the right of others to do so(according to the current legislation in the US) which in no way means that burning a book is not a retarded thing to do.
I'm more disgusted by this thread then the subject it's about because, frankly, I expect better from people on this forum and I don't expect anything from the idiots burning Qurans.
Really does give you some perspective on just how far some people here are willing to take their dislike for religion though.
Naaah, it really doesn't and it's fairly obvious than an organized book burning of any kind would get condemned on here(I remember a thread from a while ago about some school library that wanted to do some something similar and it was the easiest consensus ever).
Apo was pointy about organized displays of sacrilege, but I don't expect any of the posters on this thread to be getting their lighters ready and nor should you.
I find particularly sad and worrisome the people who are quick to argue that flag burning is acceptable, but not qu'ran burning.
Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
If, however you do support, in general, this sort of angry protest speech but just not because it's the qu'ran, I would like to know why.
Why is that symbol important enough to be given special protection (btw these are the same questions you'll get asked if you argue for a constitutional ban on flag burning, this is a fair question) but not other people's sacred symbols?
I think Feral or some other people already answered this. With a flag it is easy to tell what it is being burned and it is pretty much just a symbol. With a book you are actually burning knowledge as well as burning a symbol. It is in some cases showing ignorance of the subject at hand because the people haven't actually read the book.
I understand the stance but I don't agree with it. It is still freedom of speech and it should still be protected even if burning books is a really bad idea.
Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
:?
Oh I'm sorry, you have a problem with the fact that I want people who don't support free speech to leave?
Tough.
I have a hard time with the "If you don't agree with me why don't you just move the Iran, comrade" garbage.
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm asking people to respect the fucking bill of god damn rights or GTFO.
-edit-
and if I ruffle feathers doing it, good. feathers have already been ruffled by some people proclaiming that this is that one magical instance where we should abandon free speech.
You're precluding the debate over what is speech with "GTFO COMMIE".
My vocabulary just isn't sufficient to convey the sheer idiocy of this, so I will just go with 'dumb'.
Burning books is a stupid practice, regardless of whatever-the-fuck. Freedom of expression isn't some sort of way of masking that fact, it's still a dumb thing to do. If the best way of conveying your sheer dislike for literature is to burn it, then wow.
My vocabulary just isn't sufficient to convey the sheer idiocy of this, so I will just go with 'dumb'.
Burning books is a stupid practice, regardless of whatever-the-fuck. Freedom of expression isn't some sort of way of masking that fact, it's still a dumb thing to do. If the best way of conveying your sheer dislike for literature is to burn it, then wow.
The freedom of expression discussion is about the legality of it not about the actual merits of burning stuff. No one is trying to mask anything.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
:?
Oh I'm sorry, you have a problem with the fact that I want people who don't support free speech to leave?
Tough.
I have a hard time with the "If you don't agree with me why don't you just move the Iran, comrade" garbage.
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm asking people to respect the fucking bill of god damn rights or GTFO.
-edit-
and if I ruffle feathers doing it, good. feathers have already been ruffled by some people proclaiming that this is that one magical instance where we should abandon free speech.
You're precluding the debate over what is speech with "GTFO COMMIE".
This kind of an organized burning is obviously speech, that was never even seriously in question. There are some people in the thread who disagree, but their arguments are emotional hand-wringing, not anything close to a coherent argument for why this is not in fact speech.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
That probably makes me a bad person, but thankfully I can express my sentiments freely because... Oh yeah that's right! Unpopular speech is protected because I live in a country that doesn't suck.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
shryke on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
I never said it should be illegal. I just said the book burning is a horrible idea.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
The people who are trying to uphold the bill of rights written by the founding fathers are similar to the Taliban?
Bwah? o_O
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
My vocabulary just isn't sufficient to convey the sheer idiocy of this, so I will just go with 'dumb'.
Burning books is a stupid practice, regardless of whatever-the-fuck. Freedom of expression isn't some sort of way of masking that fact, it's still a dumb thing to do. If the best way of conveying your sheer dislike for literature is to burn it, then wow.
The freedom of expression discussion is about the legality of it not about the actual merits of burning stuff. No one is trying to mask anything.
seanincanada of Fox comments fame just /begs/ to differ. About the last 11 pages of discussion, I honestly haven't followed it, I just dropped by to say what I think of the situation - hence the total lack of continuity between whatever was being discussed prior my post, and my post.
I honestly don't even know what there is to discuss. This is just ... ugh. Makes me sad.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
Defending rights is different than defending actions.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
Defending rights is different than defending actions.
There is also something to be said for the very real danger that this may place troops abroad in.
My vocabulary just isn't sufficient to convey the sheer idiocy of this, so I will just go with 'dumb'.
Burning books is a stupid practice, regardless of whatever-the-fuck. Freedom of expression isn't some sort of way of masking that fact, it's still a dumb thing to do. If the best way of conveying your sheer dislike for literature is to burn it, then wow.
The freedom of expression discussion is about the legality of it not about the actual merits of burning stuff. No one is trying to mask anything.
Exactly. I think everyone here is in agreement that this is a pretty terrible thing to do. They are scum of the earth. Now, if they put "fighting words" on signs, verbally abuse, insult, or harm a Muslim, etc... then they lose the protection of the 1st amendment.
I remember reading in this thread, someone posted how they're breaking local laws because they where denied permission from the local fire department. Has there been any news on this, I can't find it anywhere.
In the CNN interview, Jones was asked about the Christian principle of turning the other cheek -- not acting out in violence or engaging in payback and in deed.
"I think in deed that most of the time, we as Christians are indeed called to turn the other cheek. I believe that most of the time, talk and diplomacy is the correct way. But I always think that once in a while, I think you see that in the Bible, there are incidents where enough is enough and you stand up," Jones said.
so it's like you're doing the equivalent of crucifying Jesus to them with every Qur'an burned.
That's silly. Some beliefs are extremely silly. That is one of them.
I'm sorry, did I say that it had any value?
EDIT: by the way, I'm a big fan of Canada where speech is limited via hate speech laws, comrade or no. And yes, I'm working on returning someday, so nobody needs to suggest it.
I find particularly sad and worrisome the people who are quick to argue that flag burning is acceptable, but not qu'ran burning.
Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
If, however you do support, in general, this sort of angry protest speech but just not because it's the qu'ran, I would like to know why.
Why is that symbol important enough to be given special protection (btw these are the same questions you'll get asked if you argue for a constitutional ban on flag burning, this is a fair question) but not other people's sacred symbols?
I think Feral or some other people already answered this. With a flag it is easy to tell what it is being burned and it is pretty much just a symbol. With a book you are actually burning knowledge as well as burning a symbol. It is in some cases showing ignorance of the subject at hand because the people haven't actually read the book.
I understand the stance but I don't agree with it. It is still freedom of speech and it should still be protected even if burning books is a really bad idea.
feral's argument was insipid.
1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality.
2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup.
Please let me know which of those things his argument is. It's certainly distinct. An argument on D&D doesn't need to be interesting or stimulating to be valid, so I can't imagine you meant that.
Do you think it tastes bland?
Save 'insipid' for unripe bananas and bad roast beef, people. It doesn't mean 'crappy', even though it sounds like it should.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
Defending rights is different than defending actions.
There is also something to be said for the very real danger that this may place troops abroad in.
There is, and it should get added to the long list of why these people should feel horrible for involving themselves in this.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
Defending rights is different than defending actions.
There is also something to be said for the very real danger that this may place troops abroad in.
There is, and it should get added to the long list of why these people should feel horrible for involving themselves in this.
Buts its ok, because they prayed on it.
Luckily for them God told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
The irony is thick here.
I really dislike your point of view, and your manner. Yes, there is technically irony inherent in my suggesting that those campaigning for limiting our civil rights shut up and leave, but you act as if the sentiment is so ghastly, and it's really, really not.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
The irony is thick here.
I really dislike your point of view, and your manner. Yes, there is technically irony inherent in my suggesting that those campaigning for limiting our civil rights shut up and leave, but you act as if the sentiment is so ghastly, and it's really, really not.
The only point of view here I've expressed is how dickish a thing it is for these people to do this.
But they have a right to. Just like the people who protest that right have one as well.
The difference is I'm respecting the right to speak as they like. You're not.
You'll never catch me burning anyone's sacred symbol, because I think it's incredibly crass and offensive. But it's completely legal, and should remain so.
Additionally, we should all be free to point out the people burning the Korans are terrible, ignorant fucks with more in common with the Taliban than the Founding Fathers.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
The people who are trying to uphold the bill of rights written by the founding fathers are similar to the Taliban?
Bwah? o_O
Uh, has ANYONE said this should be illegal?
People are arguing it's a fine idea, which it isn't. It's a fucking stupid idea.
I think there's a misunderstanding regarding "defending the Quran burners."
Defending as in "this is an awesome idea, fuck dem muzlims," versus, defending as in "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it."
I find particularly sad and worrisome the people who are quick to argue that flag burning is acceptable, but not qu'ran burning.
Do you believe in this kind of speech or not? If not, fine, move to one of the many non free speech countries. Try Iran, I hear it's nice this time of year.
If, however you do support, in general, this sort of angry protest speech but just not because it's the qu'ran, I would like to know why.
Why is that symbol important enough to be given special protection (btw these are the same questions you'll get asked if you argue for a constitutional ban on flag burning, this is a fair question) but not other people's sacred symbols?
I think Feral or some other people already answered this. With a flag it is easy to tell what it is being burned and it is pretty much just a symbol. With a book you are actually burning knowledge as well as burning a symbol. It is in some cases showing ignorance of the subject at hand because the people haven't actually read the book.
I understand the stance but I don't agree with it. It is still freedom of speech and it should still be protected even if burning books is a really bad idea.
feral's argument was insipid.
1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality.
2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup.
Please let me know which of those things his argument is. It's certainly distinct. An argument on D&D doesn't need to be interesting or stimulating to be valid, so I can't imagine you meant that.
Do you think it tastes bland?
Save 'insipid' for unripe bananas and bad roast beef, people. It doesn't mean 'crappy', even though it sounds like it should.
Actually I used the word insipid correctly, it accurately characterized what I thought of Feral's argument. I'm sorry that you think insipid is a food only word, it's clearly not from the definition you posted.
And save the pedantry for some other thread, it's really not needed here, this is already a stressful topic.
As a Christian who has accepted Jesus Christ into his life, I am horribly shamed and saddened that so many of the weak willed, narrow minded, and outright lazy of my faith get the camera most of the time. There once was a time where those who sacrificed the most and were the most compassionate to their fellow man got the camera and the media's attention, now the world turns to whoever does the theological equivalent of stepping out a low car with no panties on.
And save the pedantry for some other thread, it's really not needed here, this is already a stressful topic.
You really aught to take a moment and get some air.
That said, its a dick thing to do, but they have every right to do it. Aside from the "Fuck Religion" cries from the usual sources no one is really saying much other than that.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
The irony is thick here.
I really dislike your point of view, and your manner. Yes, there is technically irony inherent in my suggesting that those campaigning for limiting our civil rights shut up and leave, but you act as if the sentiment is so ghastly, and it's really, really not.
The only point of view here I've expressed is how dickish a thing it is for these people to do this.
But they have a right to. Just like the people who protest that right have one as well.
The difference is I'm respecting the right to speak as they like. You're not.
I don't think you get how free speech works. You see, telling someone "if you don't like the way things are, leave" is also a freedom of expression thing.
When I show up at someone's door to deport them, that's when you should wad up your panties and clench them between your asscheeks. You're jumping the gun a little.
Yeah I haven't seen anything about them not being able to burn it, maybe I have not followed things closely enough. but it is kind of annoying to see this degenerate into little voltaires everywhere at the suggestion that something might not be a good idea even if they have the right to do so.
And save the pedantry for some other thread, it's really not needed here, this is already a stressful topic.
You really aught to take a moment and get some air.
That said, its a dick thing to do, but they have every right to do it. Aside from the "Fuck Religion" cries from the usual sources no one is really saying much other than that.
Actually this kind of niggling really drags threads off topic, and my having to respond to him, and you, has created a uninteresting tangent, the only purpose of which is to make me feel uncomfortable because now I feel like I need to defend my choice of a single word to two people now, when the meaning of my post was clear enough that this tangent was unnecessary.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
The irony is thick here.
I really dislike your point of view, and your manner. Yes, there is technically irony inherent in my suggesting that those campaigning for limiting our civil rights shut up and leave, but you act as if the sentiment is so ghastly, and it's really, really not.
The only point of view here I've expressed is how dickish a thing it is for these people to do this.
But they have a right to. Just like the people who protest that right have one as well.
The difference is I'm respecting the right to speak as they like. You're not.
I don't think you get how free speech works. You see, telling someone "if you don't like the way things are, leave" is also a freedom of expression thing.
When I show up at someone's door to deport them, that's when you should wad up your panties and clench them between your asscheeks. You're jumping the gun a little.
Posts
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm asking people to respect the fucking bill of god damn rights or GTFO.
-edit-
and if I ruffle feathers doing it, good. feathers have already been ruffled by some people proclaiming that this is that one magical instance where we should abandon free speech.
Yes...Yes...Now all we need is the money to do so, and a blimp driver.
I think Feral or some other people already answered this. With a flag it is easy to tell what it is being burned and it is pretty much just a symbol. With a book you are actually burning knowledge as well as burning a symbol. It is in some cases showing ignorance of the subject at hand because the people haven't actually read the book.
I understand the stance but I don't agree with it. It is still freedom of speech and it should still be protected even if burning books is a really bad idea.
I haven't checked post page 4(so, apologies if your post refers to something from the last page or so), but at least in the start it was pretty obvious that the commentary was sarcastic and that nobody supported burning books. What was supported was the right of others to do so(according to the current legislation in the US) which in no way means that burning a book is not a retarded thing to do.
Naaah, it really doesn't and it's fairly obvious than an organized book burning of any kind would get condemned on here(I remember a thread from a while ago about some school library that wanted to do some something similar and it was the easiest consensus ever).
Apo was pointy about organized displays of sacrilege, but I don't expect any of the posters on this thread to be getting their lighters ready and nor should you.
feral's argument was insipid.
You're precluding the debate over what is speech with "GTFO COMMIE".
My vocabulary just isn't sufficient to convey the sheer idiocy of this, so I will just go with 'dumb'.
Burning books is a stupid practice, regardless of whatever-the-fuck. Freedom of expression isn't some sort of way of masking that fact, it's still a dumb thing to do. If the best way of conveying your sheer dislike for literature is to burn it, then wow.
The freedom of expression discussion is about the legality of it not about the actual merits of burning stuff. No one is trying to mask anything.
This kind of an organized burning is obviously speech, that was never even seriously in question. There are some people in the thread who disagree, but their arguments are emotional hand-wringing, not anything close to a coherent argument for why this is not in fact speech.
And yes, I would gladly place the anti-speech folks on a barge with the "things were better before women could vote" crowd and ship them off to some other country.
That probably makes me a bad person, but thankfully I can express my sentiments freely because... Oh yeah that's right! Unpopular speech is protected because I live in a country that doesn't suck.
The irony is thick here.
And free to point out the same about the people in this thread defending the Quran burners.
How would these people react to someone making a public display of burning the Bible?
Bonus points if you roast a marshmallow over the burning sacred text.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The people who are trying to uphold the bill of rights written by the founding fathers are similar to the Taliban?
Bwah? o_O
seanincanada of Fox comments fame just /begs/ to differ. About the last 11 pages of discussion, I honestly haven't followed it, I just dropped by to say what I think of the situation - hence the total lack of continuity between whatever was being discussed prior my post, and my post.
I honestly don't even know what there is to discuss. This is just ... ugh. Makes me sad.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Why the fuck would anybody say something similar?
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=16468059&postcount=56
;o)
There is also something to be said for the very real danger that this may place troops abroad in.
Exactly. I think everyone here is in agreement that this is a pretty terrible thing to do. They are scum of the earth. Now, if they put "fighting words" on signs, verbally abuse, insult, or harm a Muslim, etc... then they lose the protection of the 1st amendment.
I remember reading in this thread, someone posted how they're breaking local laws because they where denied permission from the local fire department. Has there been any news on this, I can't find it anywhere.
Way to miss the point completely, pastor.
I'm sorry, did I say that it had any value?
EDIT: by the way, I'm a big fan of Canada where speech is limited via hate speech laws, comrade or no. And yes, I'm working on returning someday, so nobody needs to suggest it.
1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality.
2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup.
Please let me know which of those things his argument is. It's certainly distinct. An argument on D&D doesn't need to be interesting or stimulating to be valid, so I can't imagine you meant that.
Do you think it tastes bland?
Save 'insipid' for unripe bananas and bad roast beef, people. It doesn't mean 'crappy', even though it sounds like it should.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Luckily for them God told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Funny how often that happens.
I really dislike your point of view, and your manner. Yes, there is technically irony inherent in my suggesting that those campaigning for limiting our civil rights shut up and leave, but you act as if the sentiment is so ghastly, and it's really, really not.
The only point of view here I've expressed is how dickish a thing it is for these people to do this.
But they have a right to. Just like the people who protest that right have one as well.
The difference is I'm respecting the right to speak as they like. You're not.
Uh, has ANYONE said this should be illegal?
People are arguing it's a fine idea, which it isn't. It's a fucking stupid idea.
Indeed, and this thread has plenty of both.
Defending as in "this is an awesome idea, fuck dem muzlims," versus, defending as in "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it."
Actually I used the word insipid correctly, it accurately characterized what I thought of Feral's argument. I'm sorry that you think insipid is a food only word, it's clearly not from the definition you posted.
And save the pedantry for some other thread, it's really not needed here, this is already a stressful topic.
Please, go ahead and pick one. Or several!
FML
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
You really aught to take a moment and get some air.
That said, its a dick thing to do, but they have every right to do it. Aside from the "Fuck Religion" cries from the usual sources no one is really saying much other than that.
I don't think you get how free speech works. You see, telling someone "if you don't like the way things are, leave" is also a freedom of expression thing.
When I show up at someone's door to deport them, that's when you should wad up your panties and clench them between your asscheeks. You're jumping the gun a little.
You are not worth the effort. Get back on topic.
Actually this kind of niggling really drags threads off topic, and my having to respond to him, and you, has created a uninteresting tangent, the only purpose of which is to make me feel uncomfortable because now I feel like I need to defend my choice of a single word to two people now, when the meaning of my post was clear enough that this tangent was unnecessary.
A sedative would do you wonders.
Insipid doesn't mean without substance. If Fong things Feral's argument is without substance, he should probably use that word.
What I'm getting at here is that Feral's argument isn't rebuffed by calling it names any more than me saying 'Regina Fong's arguments are stupid.'
I propose we organize a bible burning to coincide with this. Seriously.